From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] xfs: refactor verifier callers to print address of failing check
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:04:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171215000409.GM13436@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171214220326.GI5858@dastard>
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 09:03:26AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:58:37PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> >
> > Refactor the callers of verifiers to print the instruction address of a
> > failing check.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
>
> Just a quick comment about formatting as I browsed the patch...
>
> > @@ -567,13 +568,14 @@ xfs_agfl_read_verify(
> > if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb))
> > return;
> >
> > - if (!xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGFL_CRC_OFF))
> > + if (!xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGFL_CRC_OFF)) {
> > + fa = __this_address;
> > xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EFSBADCRC);
> > - else if (xfs_agfl_verify(bp))
> > + } else if ((fa = xfs_agfl_verify(bp)))
> > xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EFSCORRUPTED);
> >
> > if (bp->b_error)
> > - xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> > + xfs_verifier_error(bp, fa);
>
> We are really trying to get rid of assignments in if() statements,
> so I'd prefer we don't add a bunch of new ones. While I understand
> there's a lot of mechanical change in this patch, I'd prefer to see
> these end up as something more like:
>
> > - if (!xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGFL_CRC_OFF))
> > + if (!xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGFL_CRC_OFF)) {
> > + fa = __this_address;
> > xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EFSBADCRC);
> > - else if (xfs_agfl_verify(bp))
> > + } else if ((fa = xfs_agfl_verify(bp)))
> > xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EFSCORRUPTED);
>
> if (!xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGFL_CRC_OFF)) {
> fa = __this_address;
> error = -EFSBADCRC;
> } else {
> fa = xfs_agfl_verify(bp);
> if (fa)
> error = -EFSCORRUPTED;
> }
>
> if (error) {
> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, error);
> xfs_verifier_error(bp, fa);
> }
>
> .....
>
> > @@ -2459,16 +2462,18 @@ xfs_agf_read_verify(
> > struct xfs_buf *bp)
> > {
> > struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> > + xfs_failaddr_t fa;
> >
> > if (xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb) &&
> > - !xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGF_CRC_OFF))
> > + !xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGF_CRC_OFF)) {
> > + fa = __this_address;
> > xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EFSBADCRC);
> > - else if (XFS_TEST_ERROR(xfs_agf_verify(mp, bp), mp,
> > - XFS_ERRTAG_ALLOC_READ_AGF))
> > + } else if (XFS_TEST_ERROR((fa = xfs_agf_verify(mp, bp)), mp,
> > + XFS_ERRTAG_ALLOC_READ_AGF))
> > xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EFSCORRUPTED);
> >
> > if (bp->b_error)
> > - xfs_verifier_error(bp);
> > + xfs_verifier_error(bp, fa);
> > }
>
> Because this sort of thing is now getting towards being unreadable.
> With the way we keep adding to verifier checks, it's only going to
> get worse if we don't take steps to clean it up...
Ok.
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
> > index 4c9f35d..0bbbf0b 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
> > @@ -347,13 +347,15 @@ xfs_corruption_error(
> > */
> > void
> > xfs_verifier_error(
> > - struct xfs_buf *bp)
> > + struct xfs_buf *bp,
> > + xfs_failaddr_t fa)
> > {
> > struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> >
> > xfs_alert(mp, "Metadata %s detected at %pS, %s block 0x%llx",
> > bp->b_error == -EFSBADCRC ? "CRC error" : "corruption",
> > - __return_address, bp->b_ops->name, bp->b_bn);
> > + fa ? fa : __return_address, bp->b_ops->name,
> > + bp->b_bn);
> >
> > xfs_alert(mp, "Unmount and run xfs_repair");
>
> I'm also wondering if we should move the xfs_buf_ioerror() call
> inside this function, too, rather than coding multiple calls in the
> verifiers to set bp->b_error in each branch of the verifier that
> has an error...
What, something like:
if (!xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGFL_CRC_OFF)) {
fa = __this_address;
error = -EFSBADCRC;
} else {
fa = xfs_agfl_verify(bp);
if (fa)
error = -EFSCORRUPTED;
}
if (error)
xfs_verifier_error(bp, fa, error);
???
--D
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-15 0:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-13 23:58 [PATCH 00/13] xfs: more and better verifiers Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-13 23:58 ` [PATCH 01/13] xfs: refactor long-format btree header verification routines Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-14 22:06 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-15 0:12 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-13 23:58 ` [PATCH 02/13] xfs: remove XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN from dir3 data verifiers Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 3:50 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-13 23:58 ` [PATCH 03/13] xfs: have buffer verifier functions report failing address Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 4:12 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-19 20:26 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-13 23:58 ` [PATCH 04/13] xfs: refactor verifier callers to print address of failing check Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-14 22:03 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-15 0:04 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2017-12-15 3:09 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-19 20:29 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-13 23:58 ` [PATCH 05/13] xfs: verify dinode header first Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 4:13 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-13 23:58 ` [PATCH 06/13] xfs: move inode fork verifiers to xfs_dinode_verify Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 5:16 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-19 20:34 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 20:48 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-13 23:58 ` [PATCH 07/13] xfs: create structure verifier function for shortform xattrs Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 5:23 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-19 20:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 20:51 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-19 21:04 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-13 23:59 ` [PATCH 08/13] xfs: create structure verifier function for short form symlinks Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 5:27 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-19 20:45 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-13 23:59 ` [PATCH 09/13] xfs: refactor short form directory structure verifier function Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 5:45 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-13 23:59 ` [PATCH 10/13] xfs: provide a centralized method for verifying inline fork data Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 6:06 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-19 20:50 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-13 23:59 ` [PATCH 11/13] xfs: fail out of xfs_attr3_leaf_lookup_int if it looks corrupt Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 6:13 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-13 23:59 ` [PATCH 12/13] xfs: create a new buf_ops pointer to verify structure metadata Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 6:22 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-19 18:15 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 20:53 ` Dave Chinner
2017-12-13 23:59 ` [PATCH 13/13] xfs: scrub in-core metadata Darrick J. Wong
2017-12-19 6:23 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171215000409.GM13436@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.